header-logo header-logo

02 September 2010 / Sarah Johnson
Issue: 7431 / Categories: Features , Terms&conditions , Employment
printer mail-detail

Money talks

Sarah Johnson analyses employees gagging for a pay discussion

Gagging staff will become more difficult next month, at least where pay discussions are concerned. Some contracts include pay secrecy terms. However, these could prevent someone discovering whether they are paid less for discriminatory reasons.

When the Equality Act 2010 (the Act) comes into force on 1 October 2010, reliance on gagging clauses will be restricted. The Act does not ban gagging clauses altogether, but a clause will be unenforceable if it seeks to prevent a “relevant pay disclosure”. The intention is to ensure greater workplace transparency and dialogue about pay. “Pay” could cover salary, bonus and other benefits, such as pension.

Under s 77 of the Act, a term of a person’s work that purports to prevent or restrict that person (P) from: (i) disclosing or seeking to disclose information about the terms of P’s work is unenforceable against P in so far as P makes or seeks to make a relevant pay disclosure to colleagues or third parties, or (ii) seeking disclosure of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Freeths—Rachel Crosier

Projects and rail practices strengthened by director hire in London

DWF—Stephen Hickling

DWF—Stephen Hickling

Real estate team in Birmingham welcomes back returning partner

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Ward Hadaway—44 appointments

Firm invests in national growth with 44 appointments across five offices

NEWS
Criminal juries may be convicting—or acquitting—on a misunderstanding. Writing in NLJ this week Paul McKeown, Adrian Keane and Sally Stares of The City Law School and LSE report troubling survey findings on the meaning of ‘sure’
The Serious Fraud Office (SFO) has narrowly preserved a key weapon in its anti-corruption arsenal. In this week's NLJ, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers examines Guralp Systems Ltd v SFO, in which the High Court ruled that a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) remained in force despite the company’s failure to disgorge £2m by the stated deadline
As the drip-feed of Epstein disclosures fuels ‘collateral damage’, the rush to cry misconduct in public office may be premature. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke of Hill Dickinson warns that the offence is no catch-all for political embarrassment. It demands a ‘grave departure’ from proper standards, an ‘abuse of the public’s trust’ and conduct ‘sufficiently serious to warrant criminal punishment’
Employment law is shifting at the margins. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ this week, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School examines a Court of Appeal ruling confirming that volunteers are not a special legal species and may qualify as ‘workers’
Refusing ADR is risky—but not always fatal. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed and Sanjay Dave Singh of the University of Leicester analyse Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd: despite repeated invitations to mediate, the defendant stood firm, made a £100,000 Part 36 offer and was ultimately ‘wholly vindicated’ at trial
back-to-top-scroll